The critique of globalization and the neo-liberal economy has, interestingly enough, become a major platform in an increasingly interdependent world, where writers and thinkers from different disciplines come together to discuss their commonalities and state their divergences. This volume comprises substantial papers from twenty writers—economists, anthropologists, political scientists, and sociologists from major research institutes in the country. It is an ambitious effort and the editor has succeeded in welding more than twenty papers into a volume with a cognizable, thematic focus. Under the rubrics of ‘Conceptual Spectrum’, ‘State-level Reforms and Development’, and, lastly, ‘Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions’, Kameshwar Choudhary has made accessible to readers in globalization studies a competent anthology of work accomplished in India, a decade after the initiation of structural reform policies in 1991.
Given that one of the earliest anthologies of papers on the reforms was brought out by Vyasulu, Sievers and myself in 1995 with Macmillan including papers by the late S. Guhan, V. Vyas, M. Redclift, K.S. Krishnaswamy, S.L. Shetty and several other noted social scientists, it was a pleasure for me to see how far the debate has moved since, adding significantly to the academic critical discourse the review of the dimensions of governance and the needed reforms in the various sectors. The term ‘Globalization’ is a highly contentious concept. It is interpreted and understood as an integrator, as a catalyst for increasing interdependence across the world, as a normative, as part of the neo-liberal agenda, as a western tool of intervention in the economies of the South and so on (p. 12). The editor in a comprehensive introduction along with his summarization and analysis provides useful tables which clearly delineate and explain not only the differing interpretations of globalization (hyperglobalizers, sceptics/critics, tranformationalists) but also the meanings (See p. 13. Figure 1.1). Indeed much of the ground covered is recent and in this sense the volume meets the needs of contemporary literature on globalization despite the fact that these papers are the outcome of a conference held at IRMA few years ago.
After the continued popular resistance to globalization by civil society members grounded on ideological differences and the market defence of globalization based on economic growth it is refreshing to come across serious writers with clearly argued positions drawn from well- referenced and well-examined terrain ranging from the several reports on poverty, inequality and development by the multilateral agencies to the texts of academic writers such as Samir Amin, Paul Streeton to the work of civil society organizations such as Astha Sansthan who have provided field based narratives of globalization and its impact on specific affected groups. Clearly the selected writers have a common purpose and that is to critically examine the multidimensional implications of the reforms not only in terms of the state- and market- celebrated increasing economic growth factor but to also see the process from below where the social divides are becoming more evident. ‘At the interstate level, what is actually happening in the country as a result of reforms is not “competitive developmentalism”, as claimed by the advocates of the market, but exacerbation of the existing inequalities and, at the intrastate level higher economic growth is not necessarily related to human/social development’ (Chowdhary, p. 72).
The authors almost uniformly are critical of the borrowed grammars of ‘development’ which today are synonymous with the acceptance of the dependency syndrome so often associated with the development paradigm, the spiralling down of the democratic spaces and the predominant role of the markets which tend to reduce the possibilities for people living in poverty to join the middle classes. ‘The shrinking of public domain, the creation of global networks and agencies for providing mechanisms for global governance, the selective freezing of state jurisdictions, the hijacking of policy processes by institutions and agencies which lack accountability to the people, the dismissal of people’s aspirations as irrelevant for making policy choices and rejection of pro-people policies as populist, the privileging of consumer over citizen … all these are part of the same striving to create spaces for the global expansion of capital.’ (Arora, p. 93)
Surinder S. Jodhka’s paper on globalization and agriculture also reflects the crisis faced by marginal and small farmers in Punjab and elsewhere due to the directions of the reform policies. Many causes have been attributed to the growing agrarian distress and the rise in suicides but clearly escalating indebtedness, state apathy, lack of timely diversification of the agrarian economy have been some of the major reasons for the shocking escalation in the desperate nature of the tragedies that mark the lives of the rural poor. What is under question is the underlying political conditionalities that have accompanied the reform processes. The assumption that there is a level-playing field and the imposition of a set of rules and processes neglectful of the complex set of differentiating factors that perpetuate inequalities come for review in these papers. Mohanty aptly states that ‘No one can minimise the significance of governance if it means effective implementation of policies or acting according to law and the rules to the last word. What is questioned here is the attempt to raise it to the level of an ideology that undermines the significance of politics. It is an apolitical ideology that assumes that questions involving structural change are already resolved and what remained was to implement the declared policies. In this case they are the market-oriented policies of globalisation and liberalisation. On the other hand, struggles are continuing over basic rights to livelihood and dignity’ (Mohanty, p. 365).
Manorajan Mohanty makes a useful observation in suggesting that there is a difference between the adoption and adherence to governance from above and the realization of democratic rights from below (See p. 372). Indeed, Mohanty is critical of the NGO sector because its funding structure by both the state and external donors reduces it to becoming an arm for the creation of a governance regime imposed from above rather than created from below, by the affected communities themselves. On similar lines, Gopal Jayal’s paper, ‘A Democratic Deficit: Citizenship and Governance in the Era of Globalisation’ cogently underscores the connectivity and the differences between governance and democracy, and, citizenship. It is a significant paper in this debate given the high degree of ambiguity and fuzziness of these concepts as popularly used by different actors. While the managerial view of governance ‘accommodates a … concession to the liberal democracies in which it originates—a certain modicum of democracy in the form of electorally-conferred legitimacy, the other is the vehicular, instrumentalist view of democracy in which the people are literally taken for a ride and … the commitment to social equality is reduced the self- aggrandisement of the political class…Both these views … are insulting and diminishing to the citizen of a democracy’ (Jayal, p. 99). Like other writers in this volume Jayal confronts the much discussed perception that growing citizenship at the transnational level is likely to be deleterious to citizenship at the domestic level.
As more spaces open up for public contestation it is likely that the idea of democracy and citizenship appears at the first glance to be more inclusive but indeed in reality there is a ‘vertical multiplication of levels’.
Without fail all the papers in varying degrees in this volume attest to the evidence of growing privatization and deregulation creating further barriers for the participation of the poor in the making of government public policy, increasing regression of rights for the excluded, and a loss of standards for the attainment of full citizenship. It is not a matter of historical accident that there is a pattern to the reforms and that the greater the dialogue on accountability the lesser the serious access and fulfilment of freedom for people who are outside of the elite and the political class. Widening income gaps and the deteriorating conditions of the tribals who continue to wage struggles for equal rights against malevolent state practices are underscored by Prakash Louis (p. 365).
Similarly, public health, which is crucial for any country with large populations of people living in poverty and ill health has been driven to a ‘state-led’ collapse, states Mohan Rao in his paper detailing declining financial support from the state for public health care and the resulting declining standards in health, apathy on the side of the political class in the face of growing hunger in certain pockets of the population, indebtedness due to borrowing for health care, user-financing models being used to further the privatization agenda and severe imbalances between regions, between households of the rich and the poor which are not apparent at first glance in the macro data. ‘The post-neonatal mortality rate is almost three times as high in households with a low standard of living as in households with a high standard of living. These differentials extend across states—the so-called well governed ones, and those not well governed. In sum, not only is the IMR still unconscionably high, with marked rural-urban differences and differences among states and regions, there are even more marked social differences between groups within the population, … thus the SCs and STs and OBCs bear a disproportionate burden of infant deaths as indeed to the poor in general. What should be more worrying is the slackening in the rate of decline over the last decade, which has extended across the so-called governance divide of the country’ (Rao, p. 495).
A second edition? All the contributors and the Editor may consider updating the data and reviewing the papers and equally importantly also consider including authors from movements who could provide the received view from the field and discuss their aspirations for an order socially more just. Despite the fact that some of the data in this volume is dated it is a significant contribution to studies on contemporary India, covering new ground, cautioning policy makers on the economistic reform processes, and reminding India as the country joins the global trillion dollar club that there are large numbers of people who have not only been excluded from development and citizenship but have been directly disprivileged by the policies aggressively followed by governments, no matter which ideological school they profess to belong to. There is a commonality between national governments in accepting and implementing the Bretton Woods inspired reforms of economic governance that reduces democracy and citizenship to a mere shadow of their real original purposes despite the tremendous growth of information technology, of goods and services, transnationalization of trade and of the much celebrated knowledge economy. It is critical that all those con-cerned, whether academics or those involved in working with disadvantaged communities at the field level provide answers to these seemingly insurmountable problems by the construction of alternatives that work and force governments to follow the alternative before it is too late, before injustice becomes a way of life we accept as given. Governance is not only about rules that are successfully applied. The health of a democracy testifies to the everyday nature of life within a society where truth and its consistent pursuit is a higher order principle for governance.
Shobha Raghuram is an independent writer and her research interests include globalization, role of development aid, role of state, markets and civil society in development and ethics in public life. She is on the International Advisory Board of Development Journal, Macmillan, London.